http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_...fm?NewsID=8087

Please note that this is not posted to imply that processor speed is
everything when it comes to computers. This is just good news for Apple,
and, for the Wintel fans who look at jut processor speed when comparing
systems, I wonder how they will spin it? I do hope Apple gets the clearly
faster CPU's for a while - not because I think it will matter in the real
world all that much, but to enjoy the spin in here.

-----

Apple's move to G5 processors from IBM is giving the company a clear
advantage against manufacturers using chips from Intel or AMD, an industry
expert has said.

"The 970FX", (the G5 chip that powers Apple's Xserve and is thought likely
to drive a future Power Mac G5 upgrade from the company), "should yield well
at 2.5GHz, up from the 2GHz speeds of the 970 used in the original Power Mac
G5. This 25 per cent increase in clock rate will not soon be matched by
Intel or AMD," writes Microprocessor Report editor-in-chief Peter
Glaskowsky.

Intel's new Prescott chip is described as "struggling to eke out minor
clock-rate improvements, and AMD will have to wait for its own 90nm products
(due in the second half of the year) to achieve substantial speed-ups for
Athlon 64," he writes.

The new G5 chip has already won the coveted Microprocessor Report Analyst's
Choice Award for Best Desktop Processor of 2003. Glaskowsky is optimistic
for the future of the processor architecture.

"Apple has promised to deliver 3GHz G5 systems this summer, implying the
arrival of further speedups for the 970FX. That's an aggressive target, but
it should be achievable. The 970FX has the necessary architectural
sophistication in its deep pipelines to make this speed possible, and IBM
has the necessary technology," he said.

He predicts that at 3GHz the 970FX should outrun chips expected from AMD and
Intel this year. "The processor has put Apple back among the leaders of the
PC speed race and given it a chance to win greater sales," he said.

More information on the analysts opinions and predictions for IBM's new
processor are available in the Microprocessor Report . A subscription is
required.

Snit wrote:
sorry, you can't have it both ways.

it seems (no surprise) that you will play the speed card when it is in your
favor, and pretend not to care when it is not.

just like that "zealots" quote i posted for you, isn't it?

Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> writes:

It's certainly not bad news for Apple, but the short-term
benefit probably won't be big. As defenders of the G4 systems
have pointed out, most people's needs are met by the G4's level
of performance. When I think of applications that really need
the highest performance levels, like:

* Games
* Multimedia development (video, audio, graphics, CGI)
* Engineering, CAD/CAM
* Small server applications

we see that, with the exception of mulitmedia, these are markets
that Apple no longer has a strong presence in. Even if the G5 does
take an undisputed lead in performance, it's not going to be a big
enough lead to move people from Intel or AMD systems for that
reason alone.

-SEan

"lefty" <lefty@oldpc.invalid> wrote in TPydndDmDtLN-trdRVn-tA@adelphia.com
on 3/4/04 10:28 AM:

Nor am I suggesting it should be. The fact that fast processors are good
news for Apple does not imply that fast processors are the primary technical
reason to get a Mac. The fast processors will help in many areas: they will
boost task completion time *for the machines that have those processors*,
they will help build positive marketing image, they will reduce the idiotic
speed-is-everything silliness from the Wintel crowd...

In no way is this asking to have it both ways.
You really did not read the comments that I made, did you? Please read them
before responding... it helps to make a conversation flow.

The final sentence: "I do hope Apple gets the clearly faster CPU's for a
while - not because I think it will matter in the real world all that much,
but to enjoy the spin in here. "

Please note that I have not even claimed Apple has the faster processors
right now, and your spin is already beginning. And yes, I am enjoying it.
Please spin away a bit more...

Snit wrote:
boy is that paragraph one big tap dance!

"The fact that fast processors are good news for Apple does not imply that
fast processors are the primary technical reason to get a Mac."

lol, tell that to those guys that made speed the primary thing in the g5
commercial!

"lefty" <lefty@oldpc.invalid> wrote in pqmdneJIJuJu8Nrd4p2dnA@adelphia.com
on 3/4/04 10:57 AM:

Are you suggesting that marketing is about focusing on the technical reasons
a product is better? If so, I would love to see your support. If not,
well, then what is your point?

For that matter, look at the Apple marketing material. It has been focusing
on iLife very heavily. In case you did not know, iLife is not dependant on
the G5.

In article <BC6CA80C.419F8%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

How about: "this only shows Apple's desperation. They're on the way
out and this is just a last.minute ploy to stay in business another
year."

B)

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

In article <x7r7w8347q.fsf@bolo.xenadyne.com>,
Sean Burke <foobar@mystery.org> wrote:

Gaming has never been so good on the mac as it is now. We get almost
all the top games and more.

The mac has that covered.

You may have a point here - yet there are CAD apps for OS X,
apparently.

Dunno abot that.

No, not that alone. People don't buy macs for the speed.

Not yet, anyway..

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

In article <TPydndDmDtLN-trdRVn-tA@adelphia.com>,
"lefty" <lefty@oldpc.invalid> wrote:

Have you never heard of "rubbing it in your face"? It's a fun game and
Snit has apparently decided to start a round. I don't think it'll be
the last..

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

C Lund wrote:

Well, I purchased an eMac. Also purchased a 2.7Ghz Celeron laptop.
(Which I took back) The eMac plays dvds flawlessly, while the laptop
skipped or stalled on some frames. If I so much as opened another app
on the laptop the dvd player would stop, but not on the eMac.

In article <TPydndDmDtLN-trdRVn-tA@adelphia.com>,
"lefty" <lefty@oldpc.invalid> wrote:

Anyone who recognizes the consumer/pro market market devision has
absolutely no trouble with the concept that high performance might be
unimportant in the iMac's market, but critial in the PowerMac's market.

--
"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences,
and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences."
-- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004

C Lund wrote:
well you can never get me ;-)

you see, with linux and/or *bsd as my favorite os, i can switch to power
architecture the very moment it achieves the best price/performance for my
purposes. i might even leave the mac os on there if it is bundled ;-)

ZnU wrote:
ah, if the commercial was for "the consumer/pro market market" why was the
wall blown out of some guy's house (was that his mom?) rather than an office
tower?

(i can't find the ad on-line right now, but i think it was a house.)

"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in znu-E0A00C.13312204032004@nntp.acecape.com
on 3/4/04 11:31 AM:

Ok... Win fans... do not read the below. It is the reasoned way to go
against the Mac users, as opposed to what is usually tried:







Are you still reading?







Still here?









Ok... I trust only Mac fans are reading now.... right.

See, Apple does not focus on all the markets the Windows hardware companies
do. If people wanted to attack the Mac in a reasoned way, they would drop
the erroneous claims of high prices, and jump to markets the Mac does not
serve well. They could speak about a market one of these PC's meet that
Apple does not serve well, so the best choice for an Apple fan would be to
get a much higher priced machine. The claim that the machines are equal
would be lost, but they could reasonably look at the price differences.

This would be, of course, accurate. Apple does not have, for example, a low
end machine that handles dual monitors (without unsupported tweaks, that
is). I have mentioned this in the past, but they are so irrationally
focused on speed they seem to miss the point.

Shhhh.... do not tell them. If they ever actually made a valid point that
honest folks had to acknowledge, it would shatter their worlds.

In article <BC6CA80C.419F8%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

Begin Windroid Spin_

"But Intel is ALREADY past 3 .0 GHz, and will be at 3.5 before Macs hit
3.0, and processor clock speed is EVERYTHING (along with price)! I can
get a 3.01GHz PC running Windows XP for $1.99. Why would I want to spend
more than $30,000 for a mere 3.0 GHz Mac?"

End Windroid Spin -

--
George Graves
------------------
My Three Favorite Words WRT Women, Wine, food, cars and motorcycles:
"Made in Italy"

"GreyCloud" <mist@Cumulus.com> wrote in
8BK1c.692$Wc4.1247@bcandid.telisphere.com on 3/4/04 11:30 AM:

you want to fairly compare the machines, you need to look only at CPU speed.

This is what we keep hearing, right?

"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in
gmgravesnos-CFD172.10495504032004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net on 3/4/04 11:51 AM:

Already prepared for it:

5.8 GHz for $199.99

http://tinyurl.com/36c49

I cannot find a PC with 1/2 the GHz for even 2x the price. PC's are grossly
overpriced; what other conclusion is possible?

In article <huudnUN6iodT69rdRVn-tA@adelphia.com>,
"lefty" <lefty@oldpc.invalid> wrote:

Of course there's nothing you _do_ with Linux or BSD except "run" it, so
anything will meet your needs.
--
SD
"...merely a preponderance of evidence."

"Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in
pan.2004.03.04.19.15.23.750000@hotmail.com on 3/4/04 12:15 PM:

Um, Steve, I was kidding. I was making fun of the recent whining and other
silliness from the Wintel crowd.

"Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in
pan.2004.03.04.19.14.30.125000@hotmail.com on 3/4/04 12:14 PM:


Well, of course the argument is ignorant. That is the point. As far as
your stretching of my comments to Apples, I cannot find good specs to
compare these apples with any computer.

I think you missed the point.